Round The World

New Delhi, 11 July 2025

Modi’s Five-Nation Visit

PAVING THE THIRD WAY

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions) 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited five countries en route to attend the 17^th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro. This was his longest trip since a decade. These visits also broke many new grounds. The countries he visited – Ghana, Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina, Brazil and Namibia - were all former colonies of Britain, Spain, Germany and Portugal. Significantly, in the current geo-political scenario, whilst America and China are flexing their military and economic muscles to gain influence world over, these countries have tried to remain independent of the power blocs. 

Strategically, Prime Minister Modi may be offering a third way by inviting these countries to ‘grow together’ as partners and seek ‘security through solidarity’. He said that the power and value of a country do not manifest only through military mind or market size but in promoting inclusivity, cooperation and trust. The reference is obvious, that is, to America and China. Let us explore the viability of this aspiration of Indian diplomacy and leadership. 

There is hardly any debate on India’s commitment to the Global South. Modi’s visit to these countries heavily reflected this. He himself asserted that India has been concerned about the conditions of exploitation and discrimination of Global South. New Delhi sought to create an equal world where Global South has a voice and space. It created Non-Alignment Movement in the past was active in G-77, now G-20. Modi claims to, and rightly so, have led the G-20 successfully. 

The notable achievement has been inclusion of The African Union as a full member in the New Delhi summit. He promised to give a ‘new form’ to BRICS under its leadership that is passed on from the current Chair, Brazil. As a wizard of acronyms, Modi even suggested a new name for BRICS; Building Resilience and Innovation for Cooperation and Sustainability. Will he succeed in transforming BRICS as he did to G-20? Remember, BRICS is largely controlled by Sino-Russian axis. 

In the absence of Chinese and Russian Presidents, there was quite a bit of coherence evident in the deliberations and statements that came out of Rio Summit. The members were unanimous in their reference to the wars in Gaza and Iran. The Indian delegation even managed to insert a paragraph on Pahalgam condemning the act of terrorism. This was not possible in the recent SCO Conference. Yet, substantially restructuring BRICS is a tall order. If Modi succeeds in giving it a new form, kudos is due to his deft diplomacy and inimitable leadership. 

However, his first stop was the Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad & Tobago. This was after the last visit of an Indian Prime Minister in 1999. Indian labourers were brought to that country way back from 1845. The current President Christine Carla Kangaloo and the Prime Minister Kamla-Prasad Bissessar owe their ancestry to India. Modi, as usual, addressed the Indian Diaspora and said the story of Diaspora is no longer that of struggles and suffering but now consists of success and value. The leadership of Indian origin is a testimony to that hugely qualitative change. An important MoU was signed on Indian Pharmacopia, meant to facilitate supply of generic medicines from India. 

The next stop was Ghana. Modi’s visit was first by an Indian Prime Minister in 30 years. Ghana is a strategic partner for India in West Africa as it is a member of African Union and ECOWAS – Economic Community of West African States comprising 15 countries. Four MoUs were signed during the visit in the areas of traditional medicine and Ayurveda, BIS – Bureau of Indian Standards and a Ghana counterpart for trade investment, a cultural exchange (2025-29) and a Joint Commission for Regular Interaction between officials of both countries. Ghana was one of the first countries to use UPI payments. New Delhi offers to develop Ghana as a vaccine hub of Africa. 

India would focus on Ghana to reduce China’s dominance in Africa. New Delhi has second largest number of projects in Ghana (11), and Indian companies have invested up to 2b USD in 818 projects. Ghana has been active in international politics along with India from the days of Kwame Nkrumah and Jawahar Lal Nehru. Ghana has produced illustrious personalities like Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of United Nations and Shirley Botchwey, the current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. Modi duly acknowledged that. In turn, Ghana honoured Modi with their highest civilian award. 

As usual, Modi appreciated the contribution of 15000 strong-Indian Diaspora who contributes to deepening the contact between both the countries. The bilateral relationship was elevated to a comprehensive partnership. India and Ghana are looking forward to consolidating their relations. They have agreed to double the trade (3b USD) in five years. New Delhi is aiming at securing a strong platform in Ghana to engage most of Africa. 

In Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, the third stop in Modi’s itinerary, he was received by President Javier Milei. The discussions focused on common themes of his entire visit – pharmaceuticals, vaccines, digital technology, food security and critical minerals. Argentina is rich in shale gas and oil. Both countries agreed on critical minerals as India offered pharmaceuticals. 

Modi flew from the neighbouring country Argentina to Rio (Brazil) for the BRICS Summit, the highlights of which have been mentioned here earlier. After the Summit, Modi made an official visit to the country. He was met by his counterpart, the formidable Left leader, the President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula. Modi acknowledged the contribution of Lula as the chief architect of India-Brazil strategic partnership. Both leaders agreed that India-Brazil cooperation is an important pillar of the world. Both countries are members of BRICS and IBSA. Six agreements were inked which covered renewable energy, terrorism, intellectual property, agriculture, protection of classified information and defence (on mutual trust). 

The last port of call was Namibia. This was first for Prime Minister Modi and third ever by an Indian Prime Minister. Namibian President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah conferred Modi with the highest civilian award of her country. India has stood by Namibia’s struggle for liberation. Its forerunner SWAPO – South West African Peoples Organisation had diplomatic contact with India in 1986. India was one of the first countries to recognise Namibia as it got independence in 1990. Several MoUs were signed with Namibia including the Global Bi-fuel Alliance. Namibia also accepted to launch UPI digital payments. Modi addressed the Namibian Parliament. He struck a chord as he announced that India aims in Africa to build together. Africa should not be seen as a source of raw materials but also for value creation. 

All in all, this long trip of five countries was an exercise essentially in economic diplomacy. Modi said profoundly that relationship should be built through technology, trade and trust. In this tour, Modi articulated alternative economic mechanisms to the developed world of Global North. It is perfectly in order to promote economic diplomacy and build trade partnership. But, at the end of the day, the world order is defined by power, in its multiple dimensions. The countries in Global South are disunited despite common history and destiny. The big question is how to execute their aspiration in the current geo-political complexity. Admittedly, economic diplomacy can be independent of other variables in global politics. However, this is doable and desirable as long as it lasts. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 10 July 2025

TIME NOW FOR POLL REFORMS

By Inder Jit

(Released on 12 June 1984) 

Some top Opposition leaders have spoken out not a day too soon in directing the country’s attention to the question of electoral reforms. Poll laws and the electoral system are no doubt a matter of perennial interest in any healthy democracy. But the subject deserves greater importance in the year of the general election. All talk of poll reforms is meaningless until it yields specific results. It is thus time to get the Government to take long-pending decisions on various recommendations made by the Election Commission and the Opposition parties over the years. In fact, the Commission itself has again recommended to the Government some important changes with an eye on the forthcoming election. Among other things, it has urged amendment of the electoral law so as to treat any breach of the model code of conduct for parties and candidates as a corrupt practice and an electoral offence entailing the election of the successful candidate to be set aside.

Many of these suggestions have been made time and again. But no action has been taken on these recommendations. In fact, the Government’s approach to poll reforms has been most unfortunate. Let alone the recommendations of the poll Commission and the Opposition parties, it has not even cared to implement some of the suggestions of its own leaders. What is worse, the Government has been taking defence behind unworthy pleas. The Union Cabinet is known to have set up a sub-committee some two years ago to consider various proposals in regard to electoral reforms. But the sub-committee has hardly functioned. It met last about 18 months ago--in January 1983. Four or five meetings of the sub-committee are stated to have been fixed thereafter. However, these were postponed every time as its Chairman, Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao, Minister of External Affairs, was abroad. The members are Mr Jagannath Kaushal, Mr P.C. Sethi and Mr Shiv Shankar.

In July 1981, Mrs Gandhi held talks with Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee President of the BJP, and Mr Chandrajit Yadav, President of Janwadi Party and conceded the need for poll reforms. The Prime Minister, I was told at the time, also agreed that two things could be done straightaway to prevent impersonation and rigging. Identity cards could be issued to voters and electronic voting machines installed. However, Mrs Gandhi added that identity cards could perhaps be introduced by stages, beginning with West Bengal, in view of its “heavy cost”. Mrs Gandhi was then told that, according to the Election Commission, the cost for the whole country would be Rs 40 crores. It was also pointed out that the investment in identity cards would be useful in several other ways. These could, for instance, be used for verification of rationing and banking -- and for checking infiltration of foreigners. (Think of its utility in Punjab and the North-East region today!) Mrs Gandhi maintained that the scheme be put through in stages.

Three years have meanwhile rolled by. Little has also been done in regard to switchover to electronic voting which proved an instant hit with the voters in the Parur constituency in Kerala and, importantly, cut down impersonation and bogus voting to the minimum. (Voting in the constituency shot up to 75 per cent.) True, the Supreme Court held in March last that the Election Commission’s order directing the casting of ballot by machines was without jurisdiction, according to law, and hence illegal. True also, that the Government declared in Parliament that the law as now laid down by the Supreme Court’s judgement “is unexceptionable.” But nothing prevented the Union authorities from seeking a review of the judgment, described by some experts as “retrograde and preposterous,” in the interest of a cleaner poll. What is more, nothing barred the Government from coming forward with an amendment of the law and the rules to clarify that balloting includes voting by the electronic machine, a fact already accepted by at least one updated dictionary.

Curiously, however, Mrs Gandhi expressed her inability to go along with the Opposition on two other counts. First, Government funding of elections as recommended by the Election Commission. Second, inclusion of expenditure incurred by a political party in the candidate’s account, as was the case prior to the amendments made by Mrs Gandhi’s regime in the Representation of the People Act following the famous case in which the Supreme Court set aside in 1975 the election of a Congress (I) MP, Mr Amar Nath Chawla on a petition by Mr Kanwar Lal Gupta, a Jana Sangh leader. Curiously? Yes. I had it on good authority that the Congress (I) leaders had given their full and eloquent support to these two reforms also while their party was out of office and the Janata was in power. In fact, in those days Mr C.M. Stephens even pressed for the two reforms as they were, one, unsure of their own ability to raise funds while in the wilderness, and, two, feared that the 1975 amendment to the Representation of the People Act would heavily load the dice against them as it had made the poll expense ceiling meaningless.

All the four reforms should be put through as also a few others. Constitutional pundits are, for instance, agreed on two basic points in regard to the functioning of the Indian system. First, the system has failed to function efficiently because of political fragmentation and multiplicity of parties. Some way, it is urged, needs to be found to limit the number of parties and, if possible, to have a maximum of three parties as in the case of Britain. Even rich and highly developed countries have suffered grievously from the consequences of multiplicity of parties or from groupism. The Third Republic in France between 1870 and 1940 had 99 Governments. The Fourth Republic between 1946 and 1958 had 28 Governments. France somehow carried on without, in effect, a Government at all because, first, it had a highly competent and a highly respected civil service and, secondly, France's economy was in essence free. Under the Weimar Constitution, Germany had no less than 20 Governments between 1919 and 1933. It was this lack of Government, coinciding with the great depression, which led to the destruction of democracy by the National Socialists under Hitler and the colossal carnage of the Second World War.

There is no shortage of ideas or suggestions for electoral reforms or, specifically, for limiting the parties to three or four. In West Germany, for instance, a party is allowed representation in Parliament under the list system only if it polls a minimum of five per cent of the total votes cast. A similar idea was mooted by the late Mohan Kumaramangalam to achieve the purpose to eliminate splinter groups and enable the political party which came to power to enjoy certain stability for a period, so that it could be helped to implement its programme. The Election Commission, for its part, has already taken some welcome steps over the years to put an end to the growth of mushroom parties. Gone are the days when any group of people could easily get registered with the Election Commission as a political party. The Commission now rigorously enforces the criteria laid down for according registration under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order. A party can no longer obtain registration from the Commission first and then organise its activities. There has to be a party properly so called before it can be registered.

Parliament has before it many other suggestions. These include the proposal that India should change over to proportional representation or the list system. (Under the list system the electors vote not for individual candidates but for party list and after the poll the party receives a share of seats corresponding to the percentage of votes secured by them respectively. Apart from ensuring fair representation the list system would have one other advantage in the Indian context, it would end the premium on caste and communal considerations and help to give due emphasis on parties and their programmes). While such basic issues can be discussed at length and a national consensus sought, several other things could be done straightaway to reform the electoral system. Voting, for instance, could be made compulsory as advocated by the Election Commission several years ago and by Mr C. Subramaniam, Congress President, after the 1971 poll. Compulsory voting is prevalent in over a dozen countries, including Australia, Italy and Egypt and its introduction has proved both effective and encouraging. Defaulters could be asked to pay a fine or have their names suspended from the poll for the next general elections. As an Australian leader once said: “Compulsory voting assists a Government, which is popular and punishes one which is unpopular.”

The Government could do much else in the limited time still available between now and the general election. Among other things, it could, as proposed by the Election Commission, lay down some clear and firm rules in regard to use of official planes and transport. (In 1967, Mrs Gandhi used IAF planes for her 46-day poll campaign round the country and paid for it no more than Rs 8,650. During the mid-term poll in U.P. early in 1969, she was charged Rs 6 and few odd paise for a 20-minute helicopter ride from Deoria to Kasia an air distance of 20 miles.) At the same time, the Union authorities could implement some eminently practical suggestions put forward by the BJP leader, Mr L.K. Advani, to prevent the Government from misusing All India Radio, Doordarshan and DAVP for poll purposes. Money-power and media power, according to Mr Advani, “have become two major threats to the fairness of elections”. Specifically, he has proposed a special cell to monitor the coverage of poll news by AIR and Doordarshan in accordance with the model code, accepted by all parties. In the final analysis, everything depends upon Mrs Gandhi and her Government. Are they willing to do their best for free and fair poll? --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Spotlight

New Delhi, 12 July 2025

Should We Gild the Cornices?

By Andrzej Lubowski

(Centre for International Relations, Poland) 

Last weekend, United States President Donald Trump, from his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, was deliberating over the phone about what to do with the tariffs announced on “Liberation Day.” Should he impose these, or give the world—and especially reluctant contractors—a few more weeks to think it over? The White House reminded, not for the first time, that the waiting rooms were crowded with eager parties, and the president had “clearly stated: The United States, the largest and best consumer market in the world, holds all the trumps and leverage in negotiations to unilaterally make deals with appropriate tariff rates for our trading partners.” 

So it’s understandable that the president is a bit irritated—things are dragging on, since it’s been over three months since “Liberation Day.” He’s riding high after signing the “One Big Beautiful Act” and bombing Iran, so a trade success would be the cherry on top. Unfortunately, the cherry will have to wait a bit longer. 

On Monday, he postponed the implementation of the tariffs for another three weeks and sent warning letters to contractors who were dragging their feet. In the evening, he told journalists that the new deadline—August 1—was “final, but not 100% final.” On Tuesday morning, he published an online statement saying that “no extensions will be granted,” only to announce later that day that the original deadline hadn’t changed at all. During Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, he said, “that wasn’t a change,” but rather “a clarification, maybe.” 

That meeting—fresh as warm rolls—gave the president a chance to share his feelings with the world. And he did, for 104 minutes. The mood swung from gloomy and full of complaints to cheerful. At the start, he lamented that “it’s hard to have a successful country when you have corrupt media.” Here, the president was referring to those who dared quote the preliminary intelligence assessment, which differed from his opinion that the strikes on Iran had “wiped nuclear sites off the face of the earth.” In a constructive tone, he pointed out who should be thrown out over this. He expressed his disappointment with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who remains nice but just not enough. Not nice. 

When a journalist asked who decided to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine, a decision Trump suddenly reversed on Monday, he replied, “I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me?” And unfortunately, we still don’t know who decided. Maybe some insubordinate major, say, from the Marines. 

It’s known that the President Trump can’t wait for the new central bank chief, so he pointed to the Secretary of the Treasury and said, “I like you better.” He was very annoyed when asked  about Jeffrey Epstein, the American financier and convicted sex offender, and, in his usual delicate way, chewed out his people, who once were eager to solve mysteries but no longer are. And that’s the point. Once he let out most of his complaints, the mood clearly improved, as the president focused on interior decorating. 

He described a pendulum clock he took from the State Department. Then he gave a history lesson, focusing on several of his predecessors. The cabinet learned, for example, that President James K. Polk “was, in a sense, a real estate guy—people don’t know that,” and Dwight D. Eisenhower “was the toughest, at least until we came along.” He then turned to John Quincy Adams’s portrait, specifically its frame. “You know,” he said, “I’m a frames guy. Sometimes I like the frames more than the paintings.” The cabinet laughed. Then President Trump looked up at the ceiling. The matter of whether to gild the cornices was weighing on him. 

“Linda, do you have an opinion?”—he asked the Secretary of Education. Ms. McMahon—the one from the wrestling federation—replied that she liked the idea of gilding the ceiling. Then the president addressed the entire cabinet: “Who would be in favor of gilding? Could you raise your hands?” 

Unfortunately, I don’t know the outcome of that vote. If anyone does, I’d be most grateful for the information.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 9 July 2025

Job Creation & Incentive

CONNECTING DOTS VITAL   

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The Cabinet’s decision to roll out the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) scheme with an outlay of over Rs 99,000 crore to create 3.5 crore jobs over the next two years, to be run by Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) from this August is welcome. Job creation is a critical problem given that the workforce is increasing with every passing year in a country with a massive population. 

Delving into the scheme, it needs to be stated that its focus is on the formal sector which, no doubt, needs attention. The decision to pay one month’s wage of Rs 15,000 in two installments is fine but the limit prescribed i.e. up to a salary ceiling of Rs 1 lakh should be reconsidered. It’s very much on the higher side and should have instead been a maximum of Rs 50,000. Firms participating in the scheme will get a cash incentive of ₹3000 for each additional employee hired for two years. However, this should have been raised as it would help in garnering more employment. 

Such an incentive scheme is necessary for the informal sector where conditions of work and the meager salary they receive need urgent attention. It would have been better if the government had simultaneously announced some scheme for this sector as it makes a valuable contribution to the country’s economy and absorbs a large section of the workforce. 

It is also a fact that India needs to generate at least 8 million jobs every year over the next decade to stay on course for its goal of becoming a developed nation by 2047. This was rightly pointed out by Chief Economic Advisor V Anantha Nageswaran while addressing the Columbia India Summit 2025, at Columbia University in April. Nageswaran underlined the imperative to increase job creation and the proportion of manufacturing in the GDP of the country. He stressed that although India cannot dictate the international environment, it must work within its limitations to create a robust domestic growth trajectory conducive to creating more employment. 

“We have a vision to construct a developed India in the 100th year of independence. But we must realize that the world around us in the next 10 to 20 years will not be as accommodative as it was in the past,” Nageswaran said. While our political leaders are harping on artificial intelligence, he warned that new technologies could potentially endanger low-skilled and entry-level jobs, rendering job generation a multifaceted endeavor. “We have to achieve the right equilibrium between technology take-up and jobs-led policies,” he said. 

Not just Nageswaran but most economists have been emphasising the need to build India’s small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which are critical to expanding the manufacturing base. “No country has made it in manufacturing without a strong SME base,” he added. But unfortunately, the contribution of manufacturing to GDP has not increased while job creation in this segment is far from satisfactory. 

It is estimated that over 66 per cent of its population is of working age. India’s median age is 29.5 years, which starkly contrasts with China’s 39.8 years and the United Kingdom’s 40.6 years. This emphasizes the tremendous potential of a dynamic, innovative, and youthful workforce but providing adequate employment is not an easy task in this age of mechanisation. Though some label it as an opportunity, it may be so for a developed economy but not an emerging one like India. 

Going by statistics, between 2014 and 2024, India created 17.19 crore more jobs, compared to the previous decade’s creation of just 2.9 crore jobs (2004-14). Notably 4.6 crore jobs were added in the year 2023-24 alone. Some initiatives of the government helped in reducing unemployment and increasing workforce participation. The unemployment rate fell from 6 per cent in 2017-18 to 3.2 per cent in 2023-24, while the labour force participation rate rose from 49.8 per cent to 60.1 per cent during the same period. 

These figures offer little reassurance, as both unemployment and significant underemployment persist. Low wages remain a problem even for qualified candidates; for instance, most MBA or B.Tech graduates earn only Rs 20,000–25,000 to start. Those relocating for work must cover living expenses from already modest salaries. 

The obvious reason for the low remuneration is the large number of candidates available in the market and they cannot dictate terms. Economists believe that the salary structure has remained the same for the last 7-8 years or even more. With such low salary, the profitability of companies has obviously increased. The government may consider fixing an entry-level minimum salary for such candidates, joining the private sector. 

At this juncture the government should focus more on high-skill, high-pay employment opportunities. India has one of the world’s most significant numbers of graduates in STEM -- science, technology, engineering, and mathematics -- fields. A closer look at technical education is imperative as India produces 1.5 million engineers annually. But only 10 to 15 per cent of this number was expected to secure deserving jobs in 2024. Materials engineers, more relevant for industrial manufacturing, are only a few thousand. 

For job creation, there is a need for the institutions to coordinate with industry and reorient technical education as per their needs. It also needs to be pointed out in this connection that the government should support self-employed sectors, which show higher mobility potential and need support through credit, training, digital inclusion and market access. 

Specialized skills in areas such as artificial intelligence, automation, robotics, electric mobility as also marine engineering, space technology etc. may help in garnering employment but that would not be sufficient to tackle the problem of job creation. India’s ambitious target of achieving 500 GW of non-fossil fuel energy by 2030 is good for the environment and this may become one of the biggest job generators. Likewise, the Indian space economy, valued today at $8.4 billion, is supposed to reach $44 billion by 2033 and would create thousands of specialised jobs, directly or indirectly. 

While private sector investments are called for in a big way, the thrust must be on the labour-intensive cottage and small units and special incentives need to be given to them. Moreover, export incentives may also be considered so that they can tap the global market. Plus, there is a need for professionalism and technology upgradation to compete in the international market. 

What is of equal importance is that India needs to transform its present education curriculum with special emphasis on skilled education, right from the school statute. More investment in education is required for candidates to get the requisite qualification to enter the job market. It should go hand in hand with the incentive scheme. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)